The Likud Court unanimously rejected petitions to expel former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant from the party, while attaching sharp criticism of his conduct around "Gallant Night," the judicial reform, the IDF crisis, and the draft law.
In the ruling, issued on Sunday, Court President Michael Kleiner and members Yitzhak Bam and Yair Lachen determined that there was no legal basis to terminate Gallant’s membership in Likud. “We found no cause to terminate Mr. Yoav Gallant’s membership in Likud,” Bam wrote at the opening of the decision.
The petitions were submitted by Likud members, who claimed that Gallant acted contrary to the party’s values, blocked judicial reform, effectively aided the opposition, violated coalition discipline, and undermined members' trust.
The party’s auditor and legal advisor supported his expulsion: the auditor argued that Gallant’s positions on Gaza - his opposition to Israeli military rule and support for a non-hostile Palestinian entity - contradicted Likud’s principles regarding the Land of Israel. The legal advisor contended that Gallant breached his duty of loyalty to the party and assisted the opposition.
Gallant, on the other hand, argued that the petitions were sweeping and lacked an evidentiary basis, asserting that he acted as defense minister out of “deep concern for Israel’s security.”
Gallant claims judicial reform advanced too quickly
He emphasized that he continues to support recalibrating the balance of powers in favor of the Knesset and the government, but believed the reform was advanced too quickly and without regard for security consequences.
During the hearings, he claimed he acted against draft refusal, but in a measured way to prevent a broader collapse in reserve forces. According to him, the outcome test was that on October 7, and during the war, forces mobilized “150%,” including air crews.
Bam and Lachen were particularly critical of the press conference Gallant held before “Gallant Night.” Bam wrote that it constituted “a surrender to the terror” of reservists who threatened not to report for duty, calling it “threat-based extortion of Israeli democracy.” However, he noted that the court has no means to determine whether Gallant assisted the opposition or acted from a genuine conception of state interest. “What are we, what is our power, and what is our courage to decide in this dispute?” he wrote.
Another key ruling concerned the tension between loyalty to a party and loyalty to the state. According to the court, a minister or Knesset member’s duty of loyalty to the State of Israel takes precedence over loyalty to the party. “A duty of loyalty to the party cannot override the duty of loyalty to the State of Israel,” the ruling stated. The court warned that too broad an application of “breach of party loyalty” could become a tool to eliminate political rivals within Likud: “A broad and vague cause for expulsion is an invitation to arbitrariness.”
Court rejects claim Gallant violated coalition discipline
Claims of violating coalition discipline were also rejected. The court found that no clear protocols or faction decisions were presented, and that Gallant resigned from the Knesset once he understood he could not support the draft law. Bam wrote that under these circumstances, “claims of violating faction discipline as grounds for expulsion were better left unclaimed.”
Lachen joined the rejection, but noted that “the deep sense of hurt” among Likud members should not be dismissed. According to him, Gallant’s press conference “effectively exacerbated the public and political crisis” and gave “momentum to the protest opposing the Likud government.” Nevertheless, he ruled: “A political mistake - even a serious one - is not necessarily equivalent to a constitutional ground for expulsion.”
Kleiner determined that Gallant’s resignation from the Knesset was sufficient to dismiss the petition, adding a principled remark: the petitioners are asking the court to enter areas that Likud itself believes courts should avoid. Kleiner also recommended that Likud’s Constitution Committee reconsider the rationale behind the new Section 21, which allows direct court petitions to expel members.